NJCubScouter

The current BSA policy on this subject, announced on Jan. 30, 2017, is here: https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/press-releases/bsa-addresses-gender-identity/ It has been discussed in this forum before. The policy is basically that the BSA considers a person to be the gender indicated on their membership application. I prefer the GSUSA policy, which looks like it was written by people who actually work with children, as opposed to the BSA policy, which looks like it was written by lawyers. (Apologies to myself.) As far as I know, the BSA has not had to deal with someone "switching b

That's been going on for years in my area, due to the merger of councils.

Let's assume they could. But why would they?

I think it is time for the BSA to stop "selling" their decision and instead look forward and say, here's how it's going to be, here's what volunteers are supposed to be doing about it, etc. They are never going to convince a lot of people that the decision-making process was a good one, and that includes me. If they keep pointing to one survey and not to others, they are just going to keep making people angry. And they can keep talking about the meetings that were held for volunteers in each council, but then they're just inviting people (like me) to point out (again) that the meeting in my

Wow, you've got a lot going on there in a fairly short post. Specifically you have a lot of money and real estate changing hands, or not changing hands, opposite of the way it does now. It seems pretty unlikely that that is the future. (And I do realize you said it wasn't a prediction.)

You know you're in trouble when a FAQ is so long that it needs a table of contents...

I don't know whether it is going to "work," but I do know that there is only one way it is going to "work." It will work if the people who are concerned about whether it is going to work put themselves in a position to make it work, and then make it work. Otherwise, you're correct, the people who want to take the easy way out are just going to turn it into a coed program.

And the champagne that she was not legally permitted to drink at her wedding.

Verbal abuse of Scouts by leaders is not permitted. The leaders (at least the IH/COR and his wife the CC) are abusing their positions to benefit their son - which, if we are being honest, happens often, but there is a line of "way too far" and what you describe crosses that line. There is no rule that says the COR and CC can't be husband and wife - in fact that wouldn't make sense, because one person can be COR and CC at the same time - but it seems to me that if a person effectively owns the troop and his wife is CC, trouble is almost a certainty. And trouble there is, since it app

Keep in mind we have had a lot of new members since then, and a lot of people who were participating then are no longer participating. I knew it has been discussed in the past, but was not industrious to go back and search for it.

It is now clear to me that the BSA has said that it is a religious organization, and it has also said that it is NOT a religious organization, depending on the legal situation in which they found themselves. Check this out: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/01/16/is-boy-scouts-america-religious-organization.html Normally I would not be quoting from Fox News nor would I be quoting Bill O'Reilly, but I have no reason to doubt that the words quoted here were actually said. This demonstrates that the BSA has been inconsistent on this question. It is especially amusing to see the BSA attor

I think I have actually seen a grid for this in the past - but of course it would be out-of-date now. It was when they decided that Venturing crew members 18-20 were no longer "youth" and were not "adult leaders" but were now considered "adult participants," which resulted in there being (I think) 6 different categories of people for YP purposes.

And I think it's getting worse. I am still irritated about them taking a clearly-worded policy on use of alcohol at Scouting events and turning it into a mostly-meaningless mishmash - and at the same time they left the poorly-worded policy on smoking as is.

Where does the Lion badge go? No, not THAT Lion.

It's right here. In spirit. So to speak.

I think what this boils down to is that if you complete your Star Board of Review before your 17th birthday, and your Life Board of Review before your "17.5 birthday," then you have met the time requirements. Of course you also have to complete all the other requirements. Also be aware that for every day that you are still working on Star, you are creating an ever-shrinking window of time in which you must make Life. If you have your Star BOR ON your 17th birthday, then there is only one day on which you can have your Life BOR - the date exactly six months after you turn 17. Not the da

Thanks. I knew the second sentence. I must have missed the change mentioned in the first sentence. That's not good. And I don't get it. An 18-year-old is an adult. I can understand the BSA wanticng at least one person who is a little older, but I don't get the reason for both. And having had three children go through those ages, and having observed some 18-20-year-old ASM's, I really don't think that a typical 21-year-old is leaps-and-bounds more mature than a typicael 18-year-old. Sometimes, not more mature at all. So this means you can still have an 18 year old ASM, and they cou

Was that in the Dale case? Regardless of whether it was that case or a different one... I will try to put this gently... what the BSA's attorneys evidently told the Supreme Court in the Dale case - as reflected in the majority opinion, which I have read several times - does not serve as what I would call a role model for trustworthiness. So it wouldn't surprise me if they said that too. It was my understanding that the BSA parted ways with both public schools and the military as CO's not necessarily because it was a religious organization that was discriminating, but because it was was

Can you explain that? Apparently I haven't been paying close enough attention recently... including to some of things posted in this forum, it would appear.

I think you are correct, but that still means there is a risk management person(s) somewhere deciding how large the self-insurance fund needs to be, and I am sure that amount is correlated to the perceived total risk - which is affected by issues like the ones we are discussing. I am sure the bigwigs at National would much rather be using as much as possible of that self-insurance fund for other crucial needs - like their own already-inflated salaries. (Hey, who took that cheap shot? He ran away so fast, I didn't see his face...)hInEAgency@gmail.com (I am ignoring the part about the la

Or if it's the BSA's insurance company saying, "Your rates are going up 40% (or whatever) unless you require two adults to be at every activity, including meetings." I don't know that to be true, but it's certainly within the realm of plausibility.

That might be true in some situations, but not others. If the patrol is going on a day hike, for the adults to be "nearby" also means thrat they are "involved." In other words they are on the hike along with the patrol. I was trying to come up with a way to avoid this, but all I get are jokes. The two adults flying overhead in a helicopter? The patrol is hiking a trail along a riverbank and the two leaders happen to be rowing down the river at the same speed and direction? Nothing serious suggests itself.

For awhile, the PLC in our troop was meeting at the SPL's home, after school, on a schedule that they determined. (Without the SM, but that's another subject.) There were no adult leaders there. For part of this time the SPL happened to be the son of the CC, but that doesn't necessarily mean that any parent was home while they were meeting. This was not just a group of friends meeting; they were planning future troop meetings and camping trips, which suggests to me that this was an "official" unit function. Is THAT now going to be prohibited?

Let's assume the National Council of Churches is a religious organization. (I'm not really familiar with it so I will take your word for it.) Is the National Conference of Christians and Jews a religious organization? The name suggests it is an organization of people who express a faith, but it is not the same faith. To me it does not meet the definition of a religious organization, for much the same reason as the BSA doesn't.

The BSA is not a religious organization. A religious organization has a specific creed relating to God, the Supreme Being, etc. The BSA does not have that.